DOCSLIB.ORG

The Other Europes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Other Europes 133 The Journal of Belarusian Studies The Other Europes BY STEPHEN G F HALL* White, Stephen and Feklyunina, Valentina. Identities and Foreign Policies in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus: The Other Europes, Palgrave Macmillan: London and New York, 2014. 350 pp. ISBN: 9780333993613. How should we define Europe? What constitutes Europe? What is the relationship between the European Union (EU) and outside states that deem themselves European? What are the discourses of these states towards Europe and their position within it? These questions form the basis of Identities and Foreign Policies in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Whereas other studies perceived identity as a dichotomy, for instance between Westernisers and Slavophiles, this investigation changes identity perceptions, arguing that it should be considered a continuum. The study, in conjunction with organisations in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine on the part of White and Fekyulnina involved extensive research over a 20 year period to ascertain meanings of Europe and the Belarusian, Russian Ukrainian regimes place in and perceptions of Europe. Professor Stephen White needs no introduction. He has been Professor at the University of Glasgow since the early 1970s. He is mostly known for work on Russia, but he has written extensively on Belarus and Ukraine. When this study began Dr. Valenitna Fekyulnina was a research assistant at University of Glasgow, but in 2012 she moved to Newcastle University to become a lecturer in politics. As mentioned the study provides a number of questions. These can be summarised as what is Europe and where do Belarus, Russia and Ukraine fit in? The study is thematic; assessing what constitutes Europe and the European Union’s failure in only seeing itself as Europe. From there the relationship between the EU and the Soviet Union is analysed. Afterwards the study looks at the competing discourse emanating from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. These are categorised as ‘Part of Europe’; ‘Alternative Europe’; and ‘Greater Europe’. The study then * Stephen Hall is a PhD candidate at the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies, London. His PhD is centred on the concept of authoritarian learning. Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 12:14:57AM via free access Reviews 134 analyses opinion polls and through using focus groups it attempts to show how public opinion fits the discourses. One is quickly drawn to the contention that the EU’s relationship with Belarus, Russia and Ukraine is confused. This is not something new; many analysts have considered this relationship fraught. The EU has 28 Members making one doctrine ‘something of a fantasy’. However, the authors go into great detail contending that the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties provided the EU with a ‘legal personality’. White and Fekyulnina are particularly harsh on Poland and its relationship with Russia where Warsaw attempts to stop any thawing in the EU Russia relationship. However, other states like the Baltic States are also notorious at keeping the relationship cold. The EU’s failure to bridge the gap between common values and individual member interests has had a deleterious effect on its relationship with all three states. This is especially prevalent with Russia, as the Kremlin cannot work with an entity without a single voice. It has preferred to work with individual states. The relationship, as White and Fekyulnina argue was fraught as the EU never considered Russia an equal partner. This unequal treatment by the EU has also hampered EU, Belarusian, Ukrainian relations. The EU wants both states to integrate into the acquis communautaire, or ‘co-operation on EU terms’. This has hampered any relationship. Yet, as the authors correctly state, it is difficult for EU, Belarusian, Ukrainian relations, as Belarus has integrated closer with Russia; while Kiev remains unstable making it hard to from a relationship. As mentioned the study provided three potential identities on a continuum. In the early 1990s, Russia was considered unique, but a part of Europe wanting to become democratic. With ensuing disenchantment brought on by the EU’s failure to see Russia as equal, the Kremlin, by 2004, perceived Russia as part of ‘Greater Europe’, quintessentially European, but with the stance that Russia is a great power unable to ‘accept the superiority of Europe’. The combination of EU eastern expansion and its perceived role in the ‘colour revolutions’ has created a relationship of pragmatism. This is something the study draws out. It is commonly perceived now, largely due to Ukraine, in the west that the Kremlin is anti-western; however, since 2004 Russia has had a pragmatic relationship with the EU perceiving itself a part of Europe. In Ukraine, the Ukraine as Europe discourse emanates from a pro-European conception of Ukraine. For pro-Europeans, Ukraine is European, suffering from Russian oppression. At the other end of the spectrum, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine have a common Slavic and Orthodox heritage. This is the discourse of ‘Alternative Europe’. Proponents of ‘Greater Europe’ see Ukraine as neither part of Europe or Russia, but should take a middle way between both. ‘Ukraine as Europe’ and Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 12:14:57AM via free access 135 The Journal of Belarusian Studies ‘Ukraine as Greater Europe’ discourses have been prominent as advocates of these approaches alternate in power creating a disordered relationship with the EU and Russia. Belarus’s identity is split. Opposition groups see Belarus as European with a history in the Polish-Lithuanian Grand Duchy. This ‘Part of Europe’ has become minimal as the opposition remain negligible. Rather White and Fekyulnina contend that the Belarus European discourse is split between the regime ‘alternative Europe’ rhetoric of close affiliation with Russia and a growing number of predominantly Russian speaking Belarusians seeing Belarus as a part of ‘Greater Europe’, European, but with an affinity to Russia. This remains the predominated dichotomy in Belarus. Yet, in the past the Belarusian regime has experimented with ‘Belarus as Greater Europe’, but once any relationship with the EU breaks down Minsk returns to an ‘Alternative European’ discourse. In the penultimate chapter the study engages with public opinion ascertaining through polls, interviews and focus groups citizen opinions in the three states. The findings are that public opinion advocates that the special path is most popular although citizens of Belarus and Ukraine also advocate a multi-vector foreign policy. However this chapter seems to stand alone. Indeed the chapters seem abstract, the relationship between the Soviet Union and the EU while interesting historically offers little for understanding current EU, Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian relations. Similarly, in the discourse chapters there is less about official discourse with too much analysis of competing identity discourses and less on what the regime says. After all understanding regime discourse and its progression helps understand identity and foreign policy issues. This is the first of a few caveats. Throughout there remains continued reliance on identity or why these regimes choose a particular course. However there is only a limited acknowledgement that economic linkage and leverage and diffusion can have an effect. While the authors are largely correct that identity is the paramount factor, limiting the study to only this issue limits the overall investigation. There is another qualification. What became a study of identity and foreign policy in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine began as an enlarged study of Europe and what Europe means. Though Europe has grown, at least in terms of the EU, the investigation could have incorporated discourse of Balkan States to better understand ‘Europe’ discourses. Both authors are Russian scholars, so the Belarus and Ukraine chapters are minimal. Although this does not limit the study, it does not promote the entire discourse in these states, particularly with regard Belarus. Unfortunately the most pressing problem is that the book was published in 2014. While the EuroMaidan is mentioned in passing it is not covered further. Of course this is not the authors fault and invariably EuroMaidan feelings will Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 12:14:57AM via free access Reviews 136 dissipate into apathy, however, the Ukraine crisis has the potential to bring Ukraine fully into the European camp and a mention of this potential scenario would have been interesting. However this admonition is not the fault of White and Fekyulnina, after all it appears to be the continued fight between the perceptions of ‘Ukraine as Europe’ and ‘Ukraine as Greater Europe’. However an analysis of what these events mean for Ukraine and Europe would have been both beneficial for the study and interesting. Yet, these criticisms do not detract from what is an excellent and interesting study of identities and foreign policies. It is high time that analysis began to assess the continuum of identity rather than seeing it as polar opposites. This is what makes this study so important; identity is not something that can be categorised. People have always possessed multiple identities and so one should consider analysing it as a continuum. This study begins to assess identity using this criterion and thus it is an important beginning for future work. By ascertaining identities in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, White and Fekyulnina provide apt and timely investigation that will change understanding towards a region where people and elites are European, but also different and where Belarusian and Ukrainian distinctness is evolving. Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 12:14:57AM via free access.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reigniting Growth in Central and Eastern Europe Eastern and Central in Growth Dawn:A New Reigniting
    McKinsey Global Institute McKinsey Global Institute A new dawn: ReignitingA new dawn: growth in Central and Eastern Europe December 2013 A new dawn: Reigniting growth in Central and Eastern Europe The McKinsey Global Institute The McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), the business and economics research arm of McKinsey & Company, was established in 1990 to develop a deeper understanding of the evolving global economy. MGI’s mission is to provide leaders in the commercial, public, and social sectors with the facts and insights on which to base management and policy decisions. MGI research combines the disciplines of economics and management, employing the analytical tools of economics with the insights of business leaders. Its “micro-to-macro” methodology examines microeconomic industry trends to better understand the broad macroeconomic forces affecting business strategy and public policy. MGI’s in-depth reports have covered more than 20 countries and 30 industries. Current research focuses on six themes: productivity and growth; the evolution of global financial markets; the economic impact of technology and innovation; natural resources; the future of work; and urbanisation. Recent reports have assessed job creation, resource productivity, cities of the future, and the impact of the Internet. The partners of McKinsey fund MGI’s research; it is not commissioned by any business, government, or other institution. For further information about MGI and to download reports, please visit www.mckinsey.com/mgi. McKinsey in Central and Eastern Europe McKinsey & Company opened its first offices in Central and Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, soon after the momentous democratic changes in the region. McKinsey played an active role in the region’s economic rebirth, working with governments, nonprofits, and cultural institutions, as well as leading business organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurasian Union: the Real, the Imaginary and the Likely
    CHAILLOT PAPER Nº 132 — September 2014 Eurasian Union: the real, the imaginary and the likely BY Nicu Popescu Chaillot Papers European Union Institute for Security Studies EU Institute for Security Studies 100, avenue de Suffren 75015 Paris http://www.iss.europa.eu Director: Antonio Missiroli © EU Institute for Security Studies, 2014. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. ISBN: 978-92-9198-247-9 ISSN: 1683-4917 QN-AA-14-002-EN-N DOI : 10.2815/42011 Published by the EU Institute for Security Studies and printed in Condé-sur-Noireau (France) by Corlet Imprimeur. Graphic design by Metropolis, Lisbon. EURASIAN UNION: THE REAL, THE IMAGINARY AND THE LIKELY Nicu Popescu CHAILLOT PAPERS September 2014 132 The author Nicu Popescu, Ph.D, is a Senior Analyst at the EUISS where he deals with EU-Russia relations and the post-Soviet space. He is the author of EU Foreign Policy and Post-Soviet Conflicts: Stealth Intervention (Routledge, 2011) and a former advisor to the Moldovan Prime Minister. European Union Institute for Security Studies Paris Director: Antonio Missiroli © EU Institute for Security Studies, 2014. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Contents Foreword 5 Antonio Missiroli Introduction 7 The real Eurasia 9 1 Decision-making 11 Economics 11 Political commitment 13 The Russian debate 14 Russkii Mir vs Eurasia? 17 The geopolitical Eurasia 19 2 Deepening vs widening 19 The current members 20 The future members 22 The Chinese neighbour
    [Show full text]
  • CEPS Wider Europe Matrix E-Version
    THE WIDER EUROPE MATRIX THE WIDER EUROPE MATRIX MICHAEL EMERSON PREFACE BY GÜNTER VERHEUGEN CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. The views expressed are entirely those of the authors. CEPS Paperbacks present analysis and views by leading experts on important questions in the arena of European public policy. They are written in a style geared to an informed but generalist readership of policy-makers, government officials and corporate executives. This book was prepared at the invitation of Aspen Italia, in the context of the Italian Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2003. Financial support from the Compagnia di San Paolo, Torino, is gratefully acknowledged. The paper also draws on a current project supported by the Science Policy Office of the Belgian federal government on conflict management in the divided states of the European periphery, undertaken by CEPS in collaboration with the Free University of Brussels (VUB); and on a recent project on the Middle East supported by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The text was finalised on 17 December 2003. Graphic designs by 6A Architects, London (www.6a.co.uk). ISBN 92-9079-469-0 © Copyright 2004, Centre for European Policy Studies. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the Centre for European Policy Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Policy Toward Eurasia and the Role of the U.S. Congress
    U.S. POLICY TOWARD EURASIA AND THE ROLE OF THE U.S. CONGRESS May 27 – June 2, 2019 | Prague, Czech Republic U.S. POLICY TOWARD EURASIA AND THE ROLE OF THE U.S. CONGRESS The Aspen Institute Congressional Program May 27 – June 2, 2019 Prague, Czech Republic TABLE OF CONTENTS Rapporteur’s Summary Matthew Rojansky .............................................................................................................. 3 U.S. Policy Toward Eurasia and the Role of the U.S. Congress Thomas Graham ...............................................................................................................17 Getting America Off the Backfoot in Eurasia Evan A. Feigenbaum .........................................................................................................23 Does BRI Really Exist? Robert Daly ......................................................................................................................29 China’s Rise as a Geo-Economic Influencer in Eurasia Philippe Le Corre ...............................................................................................................39 It’s Time to Rethink Russia’s Foreign Policy Strategy Dimitri Trenin ...................................................................................................................47 Is Russia a U.S. 'Adversary' or Just a 'Competitor'? Developing a Sustainable, Realistic U.S. Policy Towards Russia Nikolas K. Gvosdev ............................................................................................................59 The
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Search for a Greater Eurasia
    KENNAN CABLE No. 40 l February 2019 President Atambayev (Kyrgyzstan), President Nazarbayev (Kazakhstan), President Putin (Russia), President Lukashenko (Belarus), and President Sargsyan (Armenia) after a meeting of the Eurasian Economic Union in Moscow in 2014. Photograph: Reuters Russia’s Search for a Greater Eurasia: Origins, Promises, and Prospects Seçkin Köstem Vladimir Putin announced the Russian government’s Russia’s geo-economic projects are always linked to desire for a greater Eurasian partnership at the St. its status in international politics, and the search for Petersburg Economic Forum in June 2016. In the a Greater Eurasia demonstrates that for the Kremlin, opening speech, Putin proposed “considering the foreign economic strategy and international identity prospects for more extensive Eurasian partnership are inherently linked. While Russian leadership is well involving the Eurasian Economic Union,” in which aware of the shifts in the global economy, it is also countries such as China, Pakistan, Iran, and India would entrapped by its great power nationalism in designing also be included.1 Since then, Putin has consistently and implementing its strategy. With its grand name, promoted the project in his addresses to the Federal the Greater Eurasian Partnership is no exception; the Assembly, in meetings with foreign leaders, at Kremlin acknowledges the strategic importance of Asia subsequent St. Petersburg Economic Forums, and at but does not have the economic and political means to the Eastern Economic Forums held in Vladivostok. achieve its goals. KENNAN CABLE No. 40 l February 2019 Origins and Promises of Greater and Russia, as well as by Belarus and the Silk Road Economic Belt project.”3 The report put emphasis on Eurasian Partnership the modernizing role of Eurasian integration for the Russia initially aimed to integrate into Europe as Russian economy.
    [Show full text]
  • China in Central and Eastern Europe
    Center for European Policy Analysis CHINA IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE Zoltán Turai March 2018 2 w . c e p a o r g Center for European Policy Analysis All opinions are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the position or views of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. About CEPA The Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) is a 501(c)(3), non-profit, non-partisan, public policy research institute. Our mission is to promote an economically vibrant, strategically secure, and politically free Europe with close and enduring ties to the United States. Our analytical team consists of the world’s leading experts on Central-East Europe, Russia, and its neighbors. Through cutting- edge research, analysis, and programs we provide fresh insight on energy, security, and defense to government officials and agencies; we help transatlantic businesses navigate changing strategic landscapes; and we build networks of future Atlanticist leaders. © 2018 by the Center for European Policy Analysis, Washington, DC. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the Center for European Policy Analysis, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles or reviews. Center for European Policy Analysis 1275 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: [email protected] www.cepa.org Cover page: China Premier Li at the 2017 China-CEEC Budapest Summit. Photo credit: Kormany / Wikimedia. 2 Center for European Policy Analysis China in Central and Eastern Europe Zoltán Turai Andrássy National Security Fellow March 2018 2 Center for European Policy Analysis The Issue he world’s second largest economy and foreign investor, China’s investments Tin Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have grown in recent years as a share of overall European investment.
    [Show full text]
  • Macedonia and the Balkans in the 21St Century
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 34 Number 3 Summer 2000 pp.477-486 Summer 2000 Macedonia and the Balkans in the 21st Century Ljubica Z. Acevska Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ljubica Z. Acevska, Macedonia and the Balkans in the 21st Century, 34 Val. U. L. Rev. 477 (2000). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol34/iss3/2 This Lecture is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Acevska: Macedonia and the Balkans in the 21st Century Speech MACEDONIA AND THE BALKANS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Presented by Her Excellency Ljubica Z. Acevska" Ambassador of the Republic of Macedonia Ladies and gentleman and Dean Conison, I am greatly honored by the invitation to speak before you today and the opportunity to share my thoughts and views on current and future aspects of the political and economic situation in the Balkans, particularly the Republic of Macedonia. I would like to thank the Valparaiso International Law Society and the Illinois State Bar Association for the opportunity to be here this afternoon and talk about the future of Macedonia and the Balkans. Additionally, I would like to thank Makedonka Papuckoskil for 2 this invitation for me to be here today. First, I would like to provide you with a geographic and historical overview of Macedonia and the Balkans.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Sea Connectivity and the South Caucasus
    Black Sea Connectivity and the South Caucasus Dr. Mamuka Tsereteli March 2021 @MEIFrontier • @MiddleEastInst • 1763 N St. NW, Washington D.C. 20036 Frontier Europe Initiative The Middle East Institute (MEI) Frontier Europe Initiative explores interactions between Middle East countries and their Frontier Europe neighbors – the parts of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus which form a frontier between Western Europe, Russia and the Middle East. The program examines the growing energy, trade, security and political relationships with the aim of developing greater understanding of the interplay between these strategically important regions. About the author Dr. Mamuka Tsereteli is a Non-resident Scholar with Frontier Europe Initiative and a Senior Fellow at Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at American Foreign Policy Council, based in Washington, DC. He has more than thirty years’ experience in academia, diplomacy, and business development. His expertise includes economic and energy security in Europe and Eurasia, political and economic risk analysis and mitigation strategies, and business development in the Black Sea-Caspian region. Photo by Vano Shlamov/ AFP via Getty Images Black Sea Connectivity and the South Caucasus There are growing political, security, trade, and economic interests for multiple actors in the Black Sea region. These actors include traditional Black Sea powers Russia and Turkey; Western-oriented young democracies Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and Georgia; supra-national actors like the EU and NATO; the global super-power, the United States; the world’s fastest growing economic power, China; resource- rich countries in Central Asia, including Afghanistan; and of course Iran, which has demonstrated limited interest in the Black Sea in the past, but may become more active, as some recent statements and diplomatic efforts suggest following the change of administration in Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Europe ©
    POLITICAL EUROPE © Second Edition Advancing Europe The above title encompasses a number of disciplines and their intramural variants. Consequently, it may be prudent to initiate a basic yet broad approach that concentrates on a set of primary aspects. From a physical geography point of view Europe is one of the smaller continents, yet it maintains the third largest population globally — approximately eleven percent of the total — and remains the second most densely populated. Realities, however, clearly reveal that, Europe’s demography, within its intercontinental demarcations, cover a significantly greater expanse; as a result, inducing the reconstitution of the aforementioned parameters. In this respect, its entire geography encompassed by the European Civilisation — also referred to as the Western Civilisation — and delimited by the External European Cultural Frontiers have to be taken into account. Such factors demonstrate that certain continental divisions based upon physical geography, such as the Ural Mountains or the western Caucasus, have not been barriers as far as the European Civilisation is concerned. External European Cultural Frontiers — intercontinental or maritime — with the outside world can be effectively demarcated as encompassing — with minor enclave type exceptions — nations belonging to the European Civilisation, thus consolidating a specific geography. That geography classified as Greater Europe, is a continuous landmass, plus its islands. From the Latitudinal point of view, it stretches from Gibraltar to Vladivostok, thus maintaining Atlantic and Pacific outlooks. From the Longitudinal point of view it stretches from Scandinavia to Armenia. The Latter’s continental frontiers are the most southerly. Frontiers of Europe: Union of cultures within a Civilisation. Page 1 of 6 Greater Europe: The Overall Geography European Union: Integral Frontiers The importance of the aforementioned Cultural Frontiers can be reasonably highlighted by the new global currents that have emerged since the last decade of the Twentieth Century.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Writers on the Decline of Russia in the Far East and the Rise of China
    Russian Writers on the Decline of Russia in the Far East and the Rise of China Stephen Blank Summary Russia’s rapprochement with China began in the 1980s and 1990s; while its “pivot to Asia” began in 2008. Thus Russia has never completely absented itself from Asia even though for a long time the region played a secondary or tertiary role in Russian foreign policy. But today this “pivot to Asia” is a major priority for Russia and has become even more so since the invasion of Ukraine in 2014. The economic-political-strategic goals of these moves, however, have not fundamentally changed. The rapprochement with China was an attempt to reset the global balance in Russia’s favor and tilt it away from the U.S. Since then domestic and geopolitical factors have interacted in both Beijing and Moscow to render both governments ever more anti-American and anti-liberal. But the pivot to Asia was to allow Russia to play an independent, major role in East Asia among all Asian states, not just China, and to do so by modernizing the Russian Far East (RFE) and simultaneously obtaining large-scale Asian investment in the area, particularly its energy, to facilitate that modernization. Indeed, that modernization is a precondition for achieving the status Moscow craves in Asia. However, in 2016, it is apparent that not only has the modernization of the RFE run aground, the tie to China is becoming an alliance where Russia depends more on China than China does on Russia. This essay analyzes these negative outcomes in terms of the assessment of these trends by Russian writers.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Greater Europe' Or 'Greater Eurasia'? In
    RUDN Journal of Sociology 2018 Vol. 18 No. 2 262—270 Вестник РУДН. Серия: СОЦИОЛОГИЯ http://journals.rudn.ru/sociology DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2018-18-2-262-270 ‘GREATER EUROPE’ OR ‘GREATER EURASIA’? IN SEARCH OF NEW IDEAS FOR THE EURASIAN INTEGRATION*1 A.V. Tsvyk Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University) Miklukho-Maklaya St., 6, Moscow, Russia, 117198 (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract. The article considers the genesis of the idea of ‘Greater Eurasia’ which refers to the common humanitarian, economic, political and security space from Lisbon to Shanghai. In the first part of the article, the author focuses on the development of the idea of ‘Greater Europe’ and its historical background. The author notes that the idea of ‘Greater Eurasia’ was preceded by the idea of ‘Greater Europe’ as a project of integration or convergence of the leading European countries and Russia. In the second part of the article, the author considers possible ways and prospects for cooperation of the EU and the EAEU in the framework of the idea of ‘Greater Europe’. The article emphasizes that under the implementation of the project of the Eurasian Economic Union, the idea of ‘Greater Europe’ was associated not only with the interaction of the EU and Russia, but also of the EU and the EAEU. However, from the author’s point of view, today the idea of ‘Greater Europe’ from Lisbon to Vladivostok is losing its relevance due to China’s ‘Belt and Road’ Initiative. The author considers the perceptions of the ‘Belt and Road’ Initiative by the EU and the EAEU and concludes that the idea of ‘Greater Eurasia’ with the participation of the EU, the EAEU and China is a new geo-political phenomenon which will represent a common space between Europe, the EAEU states and Asia and in which Russia and other members of the EAEU can become a centre for integration of Asia and Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Western and Russian Narratives on the European Order: Is There Common Ground?
    April 2016 Conference Report Competing Western and Russian narratives on the European order: Is there common ground? Thomas Frear and Lukasz Kulesa (eds.) Contents Page 1 - Introduction Page 2 - Summary Page 4 - Session One: Russia and Western views on the nature of the European security order in the 21st century Page 7 - Session Two: Respect for sovereignty, use of force and the principle of non- intervention in internal affairs of other states Page 10 - Session Three: Inviolability of borders, territorial integrity of states and self- determination of peoples Page 12 - Conclusions and next steps Page 14 - Appendix One: List of participants Page 15 - Appendix Two: Written contributions Page 17: The Procedural Foundations of the European Security Order: Russian and “Western” Perspectives – Mikhail Troitskiy Page 23: Russia’s “energetic” policy in the struggle for a new international order: a Ukrainian perspective - Oleksandr Tytarchuk Page 28: Reflections on Post-Cold War Order - Richard Sakwa Page 37: Respect for Sovereignty, Use of Force and the Principle of Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs of Other States - Natalino Ronzitti Page 43: Contested understandings of sovereignty, the use of force and the wider inter- national legal order: the political context - Roy Allison Page 49: Territorial integrity and self-determination: rules and standards - Sergey Markedonov Competing Western and Russian Narratives on the European Order: Is there common ground? Thomas Frear and Lukasz Kulesa April 2016 On 7th November 2015 the European Leadership Network (ELN), in cooperation with the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), hosted an event in London on the competing legal and political narratives between Russia and the West.
    [Show full text]